This article was downloaded by: [94.245.39.4]On: 19 May 2014, At: 08:29Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Impact AssessmentPublication details, including instructionsfor authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/tiap19

ENVIRONMENTALPLANNING &ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIALIA METHODOLOGY INTHE CROSS-CULTURALCONTEXTT. H.D. Nesbitt aa AVATI Associates Environmental Planning,Analysis and Training , 5310 Lundquist Road,Yellowknife , NWT , CanadaPublished online: 06 Feb 2012.

To cite this article: T. H.D. Nesbitt (1990) ENVIRONMENTALPLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL IA METHODOLOGY IN THECROSS-CULTURAL CONTEXT, Impact Assessment, 8:3, 33-43, DOI:10.1080/07349165.1990.9726053

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07349165.1990.9726053

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy ofall the information (the “Content”) contained in the publicationson our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and ourlicensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to theaccuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content.Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinionsand views of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed byTaylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of

information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses,actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the useof the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of accessand use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

EN VIR ONMEN TA L PLANNING tY ENVIRONMENTAL/SOCIAL I A

CONTEXT ME THODOL OG Y IN THE CROSS- CULTURAL

T.H.D. Nesbitt*

INTRODUCTION

This paper has two primary purposes: to clarify the relationship be- tween environmental planning, environmental/social impact assessment (impact assessment) and, the development of environmental policy; and to recommend a method of environmental planning which the author has found useful in the Northwest Territories of Canada.

Definitions

Environmental Planning - Planning is a process by which an indi- vidual or group identifies what it would like to accomplish and determines how it can do this most effectively. It is a process for defining goals and for developing a strategy for meeting them. Environmental (or land use) planning is a process by which a group identifies its many environmental or land-related goals, and determines its most effective strategy for meet- ing them. It can incorporate social and economic goals, but its primary focus and point of departure is on the use of the environment, land and resources.

When confronted with the more complex issues and greater informa- tion requirements typical of environmental issues, the planning process can be broken down into a series of logical steps: definition of the plan- ning task, identification of goals, situation appraisal, generation and as- sessment of options, and formulation of decisions (Boothroyd, 1986). The planning process is set out in Figure 1.

* AVATI Associates Environmental Planning, Analysis and Training, 5310 Lundquist Road, Yellowknife, NWT, Canada

33

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

Pla

nn

ing

1. W

hat w

ould

the

part

icip

ants

in th

e --

-.,.

pr

oces

s lik

e to

acc

ompl

ish

(re.

so

me

issu

e)?

Cla

rifi

catio

n of

go

als.

2.

How

can

they

go

abou

t mee

ting

---.

,.

thes

e go

als

mos

t ef

fect

ivel

y?

Dev

elop

men

t of t

he

mos

t eff

ectiv

e st

rate

gy

for

mee

ting

goal

s.

Fig

ure

1.

The

P

lann

ing

Pro

cess

Sys

tem

atic

P

lan

nin

g

1.

Def

initi

on o

f the

Pla

nnin

g T

ask

-Wha

t is

bein

g pl

anne

d at

th

is s

tage

in th

e ov

eral

l pro

cess

? W

hat i

s th

e cu

rren

t foc

us o

f th

e pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss?

2.

Iden

tific

atio

n of

Goa

ls -

Wha

t wou

ld th

e pa

rtic

ipan

ts in

the

proc

ess

like

to a

ccom

plis

h on

thi

s is

sue?

Wha

t are

thei

r goa

ls?

3. S

ituat

ion

App

rais

al -

Wha

t are

the

sign

ific

ant c

hara

cter

istic

s of

the

pres

ent s

ituat

ion?

Wha

t fur

ther

issu

es h

ave

to b

e re

solv

ed?

4.

Gen

erat

ion

of O

ptio

ns -

How

mig

ht p

artic

ipan

ts g

o ab

out m

eetin

g th

eir g

oals

? H

ow m

ight

the

issu

es b

e m

ost e

ffec

tivel

y ad

dres

sed?

W

hat p

ract

ical

act

ions

can

be

take

n? W

hat o

ptio

ns c

an b

e fo

rmul

ated

?

5.

Ass

essm

ent o

f Opt

ions

-H

ow d

o th

ese

optio

ns c

ompa

re w

hen

asse

ssed

aga

inst

the

plan

's go

als?

6. F

orm

ulat

ion

of D

ecis

ions

-W

hat d

ecis

ions

can

be

mad

e?

~ "'" M

::s $.

.....

0 ::s g ::s .,....

E.

'"d

Pi

::s ::s s· ()q

!.<:"

M

::s $.

.....

0 ~ ::s .,....

P>

..:::::: en

...... ~

('!) .,....

:::;

' 0 0.

.. 0 0 ()q

'<

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

T.H.D. Nesbitt 35

Environmental and Social Impact Assessment - Impact assess- ment is a process by which the environmental and social implications of a specific project or class of project are assessed, and mitigative measures are proposed. The assessment process typically consists of the following steps: project proposal, initial screening for potential significant environ- mental/social effects, definition of the scope of further review, analysis of the environmental/social context of the assessment, projection and as- sessment of likely environmental/social impacts of the project, and for- mulation of recommendations, including recommendations for mitigative measures. This process is set out in Figure 2.

Environmental Policy - Environmental policy is a statement of the environmental directions in which society should be moving. It can be produced in any number of ways and to varying degrees of detail. The ar- gument of this paper is that what we commonly call environmental policy is essentially either one component of or the same as an environmental plan, and that is best generated by the environmental planning process.

THE SCOPE AND APPLICATION OF THE PROCESSES

Environmental planning and impact assessment are basically decision- making processes. They differ, however, in several respects, including the scope of issues which they can address, and the context in which they are most effectively applied.

The two methods are contrasted in Figure 3, in which the environ- mental planning model presented in Figure 1 is used to elucidate the limitations of the impact assessment process:

0 The environmental planning process is designed to address the range of society’s environmental goals. The process normally de- votes considerable time to eliciting and clarifying the fundamental goals of participants; to ensuring that these goals are accurately and completely stated; and to discovering ways of accommodating, bal- ancing and (if necessary) defining priorities among them. Impact assessment is focused on a much narrower range of goals: the de- velopment goals of the proponent and the goals of minimizing the social and environmental impacts of a project. Impact assessment is not designed to address the range of society’s environmental goals. It is focused on a much narrower spa.tia1 and temporal problem, and is legitimate within that narrower context.

The planning process is designed to clarify the choices available to

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

1.

Pro

ject

pro

posa

l

2. I

nitia

l scr

eeni

ng f

or p

oten

tial

ly s

igni

fica

nt e

nvir

onm

enta

l/so

cial

eff

ects

A

Pot

enti

ally

sig

nifi

cant

eff

ects

N

o po

tent

iall

y si

gnif

ican

t eff

ects

/ 3.

D

efin

itio

n o

f th

e sc

ope

of

furt

her

revi

ew

4. A

naly

sis

of

the

envi

ronm

enta

l/so

cial

con

text

of t

he r

evie

w

----

41•~

P

roje

ct

App

rova

l

5.

Pro

ject

ion

and

asse

ssm

ent o

f li

kely

env

iron

men

tal/

soci

al im

pact

s o

f the

pro

ject

/cla

ss o

f pro

ject

6. R

ecom

men

dati

ons,

incl

udin

g re

com

men

dati

ons

for

mit

igat

ive

mea

sure

s

Fig

ure

2.

The

E

nvir

onm

enta

l I

Soci

al

Impa

ct

Ass

essm

ent

Pro

cess

CJ.>

0>

M

::s ;:::

. .... 0 ::s ~ ::s £ '1:1 ~ ::s ::;·

O'l R"

M

::s <

::;

· 0 ::s ~ ::s .,.. ~ -U) - ~ (!

> .,.. ::r'

0 Q

...

0 0 O'l

'<

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

T.H.D. Nesbitt 37

society and to generate a range of environmental options. These options are assessed against the goals of the plan. Impact assess- ment is generally focused on only one, much more specific option, as defined by the proponent, and on variations to it (mitigative measures). Once again, it is not designed to address the range of society’s environmental options.

Conclusions: In determinating policy and regulating development, society has a spectrum of environmental management tools available to it. Environmental planning and impact assessment are two. The wider scope of environmental planning - its focus on the range of society’s en- vironmental goals and on the best means of achieving them - makes it well-suited to the development of environmental policy. Impact assess- ment is a more narrowly-focused tool. It is most effective when used in the clear policy context of an environmental plan. It can then dispense with issues of policy and can focus on its intended task: the assessment of potential impacts against commonly-agreed environmental objectives and standards. Pursued in the absence of or as a de fact0 substitute for environmental planning, however, impact assessment is less effective. Used as a forum for determining policy, impact assessment can generate as many conflicts as it resolves.

Impact assessment and environmental planning are complementary processes. When they are used in conjunction with one another, im- pact assessment can be focused on the more specific tasks for which it is designed. Used in isolation, neither can effectively perform the spec- trum of tasks required of land management in Canada. Where issues of environmental policy are in question, greater use should be made of en- vironmental planning. Similarly, it may be worthwhile considering ways of more effectively institutionalizing environmental planning in Canada.

ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING IN A CROSS-CULTURAL CONTEXT

The limitations of impact assessment are not as yet widely recognized. The process is still championed and used where genuine issues of policy are in question, and where a combination of environmental planning and a more focused impact assessment process would make more effective use of society’s (and private industry’s) limited resources. There are several reasons for this, including the earlier emergence of impact assessment, and its institutionalization in many countries during the 1970’s and 1980’s. In

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

1.

Def

initi

on o

f th

e T

ask

(T)

T3

2.

Iden

tifi

cati

on o

f G

oals

(G

) G

3

3.

Situ

atio

n A

ppra

isal

(Fa

cts:

F)

F3

4.

Gen

erat

ion

of

Opt

ions

(0

) 0

3

5.

Ass

essm

ent

of O

ptio

ns (

AO

) . A

Ol.

A

02

A

03

6.

Dec

isio

ns (

D)

Dl··••

••• •.•

····D2

I D

3

Scop

e o

f Env

iron

men

tal P

lann

ing

Scop

e o

f Env

iron

men

tal I

Soc

ial

Impa

ct A

sses

smen

t

D

IJI2d

T4

...

G4

GS

...

F4

FS .

..

04

...

A0

4 ..

.

D4

...

Fig

ure

3.

The

S

cope

of

Env

iron

men

tal

Pla

nnin

g an

d E

nvir

onm

enta

l I

Soc

ial

Impa

ct A

sses

smen

t

c...;

0

0

M

;::1 ::: .

.., 0 ~ ;::1

...... e:. '"0

P>"

;::1

;::1 ::;·

l)q

p;e

M

;::1 ::: .

... 0 ;::1 ~ ;::1 ...... "' -=:::::

en - ~ Cl>

.,...

;::1"'

0 0..

0 0 l)q

'<

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

T.H.D. Nesbitt 39

contrast, environmental planning has emerged only recently, and it is not as yet widely and/or effectively institutionalized. As important as the earlier appearance of impact assessment, however, it is the fact that planners have generally failed to explain environmental planning in clear, practicable and consistent terms. This failure is particularly evident in environmental planning in the cross-cultural context. The need to move from a more professionally-dominated process to one characterized by a higher degree of community involvement may increasingly be recognized by planners, but effective means of accomplishing this end have seldom, as yet, been implemented.

Environniental planning in the cross-cultural context is faced with the dual reqiirements of being adapted to that context and of retaining technical competence. From the technical perspective, the process must be able to:

0 identify and balance the range of society’s environmental goals;

0 focus on and order the issues to be addressed;

0 define requirements for, master and effectively use large amounts of information;

0 identify and accurately assess the range of society’s environmental options; and,

0 make fair decisions.

Environmental planning exercises often bring together people of fun- damentally different cultures, values and backgrounds. While some par- ticipants may have been raised in an urban-industrial culture, others may follow a hunting, fishing and trapping way of life. These participants may share little else than logic, creativity and the desire to find fair a.nd practical solutions to environmental problems. Moreover, environmental plans which have failed to involve different planning interests early in the process, and which lack local understanding and support, are not likely to be effectively implemented over the longer term. From the cross-cultural perspective, environmental planning must therefore be:

0 capable of involving people of diverse cultural and educational back- grounds throughout the process, and not just at the assessment phase;

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

40 Environmental Planning & Environmental/SI Methodology

0 ca.pable of being learned and used by local people;

0 highly logical, concise, relatively simple and practical;

0 flexible, adaptable and innovative; and,

0 rewarding: capable of sustaining interest and involvement over time.

The process illustrated in Figure 1 satisfies all of the above require- ments. Originally developed by Boothroyd (1986), it has been modified and adapted by the author in several environmental planning exercises in the Northwest Territories (Nesbitt, 1989 a,b.; Nesbitt and Howell, 1988 a,b). It is the systematization of a logical process of making decisions that is common to many cultures. It allows people of diverse backgrounds to resolve complex issues in a logical and creative manner, and therefore, is appropriate intellectual technology. It provides a common language for planning; an effective means of generating environmental policy; and a framework within which impact assessment can be profitably pursued. While it cannot be guaranteed to resolve all conflicts, it can reduce conflict and allow people of different backgrounds to work together in the iden- tification and resolution of shared environmental problems. It is clear, concise and cogent.

A further illustration of the recommended process, as used by the author in a conservation planning exercise involving a large number of interests in the Baufort Sea area (Community of Paulatuk and the Wildlife Management Advisory Council (NWT), 1989), is given in Figure 4. In that figure, note that:

0 The planning process is planned at the outset. Several goals and issues are identified, a work plan is developed, and a process for addressing priority issues is put in place. The process is broken down into a number of sub-processes, and these are later integrated into a clear and simple plan.

0 The same basic logical steps are used, with some variations, through- out the process.

0 Affected parties are involved throughout the process.

0 Focused from the first on addressing clear and explicit goals and problems and on integrating the information of different parties, the

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

T.H.D. Nesbitt 41

1.1 Task develop a renewable

conservation and management plan. Plan the planning P--

.2 Goals

reswIce

.3 Facts

.4 Options

.5 Assessment

.6 Decisions:

- Human and fmcia l resources will be allocated tOtheproCeSS in the following manner ... (WorlCpW

- The plan will have 3 basic components: i) a system of landmanagement integrating - conservation andlesxnce development;

2.1 Task: develop a land management system integrating conservation and resource development

.2 Goals

.3 Facts

.4 Options

.5 Assessment -

.6 Decisions: An integrated conservatioddevelopment system = fmt component of plan strategy

3.1 Task: plan a system of resources/areasneeding special protection.

.2 Goals

.3 Facts

.4 Options

.5 Assessment

.6 Decision: A protected areas/resources system = second component of plan shategy

ii)asystem - of reSOurCeS/areaS needingspecial protection; iii) a wildlife research and management Program.

PLAN:

1. scope

2. Goals

3. Analysis of current situation

4. Strategy, with three components as developed.

T 4.1 Task plan an effecrive wildlife researchand managemem t program

.2 Goals

.3 Facts

.4 Options

.5 Assessment

.6 Decision: A well f o c d program of wildlifemearch andmanagement = thirdcomponent of plan Strategy

Figure 4. A Conservation Planning Process and Plan

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

42 Environmental Planning & Environmental/SI Methodology

process encourages these parties to translate their information into the common denominator of clear and practical language. Thus, dichotomy of scientific and local information can often be reduced or resolved (or a process for resolving it can be put in place), and considerable conflict can be prevented. Alternatively, the process can provide a clear and relatively simple context within which the more technical methods and information of impact assessment can be fruitfully pursued.

0 Goals and information requirements are defined prior to any collec- tion of information.

CONCLUSIONS

Environmental planning as described, is a relatively simple but effec- tive means of involving a range of affected parties in the development of environmental policy/plans; of integrating the different goals, values and information/ideas of these parties; of minimizing conflict; and of making fair decisions. It is adapted to the cross-cultural context that so often characterizes environmental planning in Canada, and is capable of pro- viding a framework within which environmental and social impact assess- ment can be fruitful. Its potential applications are many. One might be mentioned in particular. In recent times, many parties have recognized the need to achieve more environmentally sustainable forms of economic development (National Task Force on Environment and Economy, 1987). Environmental planning offers a logical, practical and creative means of defining this concept, and of developing consensus on how it should be achieved.

References

0 Boothroyd, Peter, 1986. DraB Handbook on Community Planning Pro- cess. Prepared for the Saskatchewan Indian Federated College, Univer- sity of Regina.

0 Community of Paulatuk and the Wildlife Management Advisory Coun- cil (NWT). March, 1990. Paulatuk Conservation Plan. A Plan for the Conservation and Management of Renewable Resources and Lands around Paulatuk, Northwest Territories. Prepared in cooperation with

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4

T.H.D. Nesbitt 43

the Canadian Parks Service, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the Depart- ment of Fisheries and Oceans, the Fisheries Joint Management Com- mittee, the Mackenzie Delta/Beaufort Sea Land Use Planning Com- mission, and the N.W.T. Department of Renewable Resources.

0 National Task Force on Environment and Economy. September, 1987. Report of the National Task Force on Environment and Economy. Sub- mitted to the Canadian Council of Resource and Environment Minis- ters.

1 Nesbitt, Thomas H.D. 1989a. “Planning Concepts and Methods: Work- shop Report,” Dene-Metis Negotiations Secretariat Land Use Planning Training Workshop, March 7-9, 1989, Yellowknife, NWT. Prepared for the Dene-Metis Negotiations Secretariat, Yellowknife, NTW.

0 -1989b. An Assessment of the Need and Feasibility of Establishing an Ecological Reserves System in the NWT: A Public Discussion paper. Prepared for the Policy and Planning Division, Department of Renew- able REsources, Government of the Northwest Territories, Yellowknife, NTW.

0 Nesbitt, T.H.D. and J . D. Howell, 1988a. Plan for the Reservation and Development of Granular Materials in the Vicinity of Sachs Harbour, NWT. Prepared for Indian and Northern Affairs Canada. This project was a joint venture of Hardy BBT Ltd. Caldary and Avati Associates, Yellowknife.

0 -1988b. Parallel plans were completed by the same authors for each of Aklavik, Holman Island, Inuvik, Paulatuk and Tuktoyaktuk, NWT.0

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

94.2

45.3

9.4]

at 0

8:29

19

May

201

4